Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court issued notice to state govt over a petition complaining that district authorities insisted on `prior permission’ for sale of property by Hindus to a Muslim, even though the property does not fall under the notified disturbed areas or within 500 metres of their periphery.The case involves a 387sq foot commercial property in Dariyapur-Kazipur area of Ahmedabad. Its owners — Bharat Panchal and his brother Praful Panchal — want to sell the property to Salim Makwana for Rs 40 lakh. The Panchal brothers had bought the property from a Muslim in 2007, and they did not require any prior permission then because the property does not fall under a notified disturbed area.In 2023, the state govt issued a notification requiring parties involved in such a transaction to furnish a certificate from the jurisdictional revenue authority stating that the property does not fall within 500 metres of an area notified under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision of Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act. The law bars property transactions without prior govt permission in this buffer zone as well.Following the 2023 notification, the parties applied to the mamlatdar and executive magistrate at Asarwa for the required certificate on Jan 2. The mamlatdar sought a report from the Talati-cum-mantri, a junior revenue official, who submitted a report on Jan 13 stating that the property does not fall within the prohibited buffer zone. However, it added, “Since the buyers and sellers are from different communities, permission from the city deputy collector, east, is necessary.”On Jan 20, the mamlatdar reiterated the view in the certificate and said, “Since the property transaction is taking place between different communities, the permission cannot be given by me; therefore your application is filed.”Terming the remarks an effective restriction under the Disturbed Areas Act, the parties moved HC through advocate Aftab Ansari, arguing that the observation by the Talati-cum-mantri was factually incorrect, without jurisdiction, and had no basis in the Act’s provisions.The petitioners sought that the mamlatdar’s opinion be quashed, contending that the mamlatdar was only required to ascertain whether the property falls under the notified area or within 500 metres of its periphery. They also urged the court to direct the property registration authorities “not to create any hindrance in the registration of the property” on the basis of this opinion.After the preliminary hearing, Justice Nisha Thakore asked the govt lawyer to clarify who was the competent authority to issue such a certificate. The HC noted, “Noticing the notification dated Aug 2, 2023 issued by state govt despite having opined so, the petitioners have been asked to seek appropriate permission from city deputy collector (east).” The court issued notice to the state govt, seeking its reply by Oct 16.
